--- layout: default title: "SC Scrapped It, But Thousands Held Last Year Under Dead Cyber Law" description: "A Hindustan Times report revealing that over 3,000 people were arrested under Section 66A of the IT Act in 2015, despite the Supreme Court striking down the provision in March 2015 for violating freedom of speech." categories: [Media mentions] date: 2016-09-07 authors: ["Aloke Tikku"] source: "Hindustan Times" permalink: /media/section-66a-arrests-supreme-court-hindustan-times/ created: 2025-12-29 --- **SC Scrapped It, But Thousands Held Last Year Under Dead Cyber Law** is a *Hindustan Times* report published on 7 September 2016. The article analyses National Crime Records Bureau data showing that police arrested 3,137 people under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act in 2015, despite the Supreme Court having struck down the provision in March 2015 for violating constitutional guarantees of free speech and expression. ## Contents 1. [Article Details](#article-details) 2. [Full Text](#full-text) 3. [Context and Background](#context-and-background) 4. [External Link](#external-link) ## Article Details
📰 Published in:
Hindustan Times
📅 Date:
7 September 2016
👤 Authors:
Aloke Tikku
📄 Type:
Investigative Report
📰 Newspaper Link:
Read Online
## Full Text

College student Danish Mohammed's arrest this March under the scrapped Section 66A of the Information Technology Act for allegedly sharing a morphed picture of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat wasn't an exception.

Police arrested more than 3,000 people under the section in 2015, triggering concerns that the law was abused well after it was struck down by the Supreme Court in March last year. The top court had ruled Section 66A violated the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.

The exact number of people arrested after it was scrapped is not available. But the National Crime Records Bureau's (NCRB) Crime in India report released last month shows 3,137 arrests under the section in 2015 against 2,423 the previous year.

On average, four people were arrested every 12 hours in 2015 as compared to three in 2014.

"I am shocked," said Supreme Court lawyer Karuna Nundy, who represented the People's Union for Civil Liberties, among the petitioners in Supreme Court seeking removal of Section 66A.

"Making sure that our guardians of law know their law is absolutely basic... Whether it is training or notifying every police officer, we need action on it immediately," she said.

It is unlikely that all 3,000-plus arrests were made before the provision was struck down in March. Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bengaluru-headquartered advocacy group Centre for Internet and Society, said it was obvious that the police had not made these arrests before the SC ruling.

Lawyer Manali Singhal said once the Supreme Court struck off a provision of law, "any arrest under that provision would be per se illegal and void".

Police also appeared to be on an overdrive to file charge sheets against people booked before the SC verdict – in 1,500 cases last year, almost twice the 2014 figure.

NCRB statistics suggest that trials too did not end.

There were 575 people still in jail on January 1, 2016, twice as many as the 275 in prison when the law was in force a year earlier. In 2015, the courts also convicted accused in 143 cases.

{% include back-to-top.html %} ## Context and Background This report exposed a significant breakdown in the implementation of judicial orders at the law enforcement level. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act had allowed police to arrest individuals for sending messages deemed "grossly offensive" or causing "annoyance" through electronic communication. Civil liberties groups had long criticised the provision as vague and susceptible to misuse, arguing it granted authorities excessive discretion to criminalise online expression. In March 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in the landmark *Shreya Singhal v Union of India* judgment, ruling that it violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The court held that the provision's language was unconstitutionally broad and lacked adequate safeguards against arbitrary application. The judgment was expected to bring an immediate end to arrests under the section. However, NCRB data revealed that arrests not only continued but actually increased in 2015, with 3,137 people arrested compared to 2,423 in 2014. The statistics indicated a pattern of either ignorance or disregard of the Supreme Court's ruling amongst police forces across the country. The fact that charge sheets were filed in 1,500 cases in 2015—nearly double the previous year—and that courts convicted individuals in 143 cases suggested that the judicial invalidation had failed to permeate the criminal justice system's operational layers. The continued enforcement raised questions about mechanisms for disseminating legal changes to frontline law enforcement, the accountability of officers who made unlawful arrests, and the remedies available to individuals detained under a non-existent legal provision. It also highlighted systemic issues in India's criminal justice system, where procedural inertia and inadequate training could result in the continued application of struck-down laws long after their formal invalidation. ## External Link - Read on Hindustan Times